That's right, noticing the stress test signups on the first day, I managed to get myself in there. I also managed to one of the lucky ones to get a key. Unless you sign up for a pay account at file planet though, they are out of keys now.
So, the good news is I can finally see what this game is like. The bad news is I have one week, of Blizzard's choosing, to play it in.
This game is great! It essentially has totally hasted all the boring parts of these sorts of games. For example, levelling up is QUICK, and getting decent power ups is also speedy! So far, no quick way to get cash, but everything else is as fast as I could want. Plus, every place you walk is a PLACE, so no walking endlessly for hours just to get bored to tears. The one thing I could ask for is the ability to "claim" monsters like other games have. By that I mean, when you attack a monster, only your party is allowed to attack it after that first attack, UNLESS you disengage it or use Call for Help.
Anyway, it's a GREAT looking game. The art style is very nice, as it is with all Blizzard games, and the quality of the graphics, while no Doom, are also very nice. I mean, just look at this!
(Note: I'm an undead warlock. I decided to be evil for a change.)
I forgot to mention that resting has been dropped in favor of something that ISN'T boring :D. Unless you are in a battle (in which case it SHOULD be disabled), your health and magic are constantly rising, and at a pretty good rate too. It's the best way to do it to really streamline all the boring parts so you just end up doing the fun things.
That's neat. What kind of a rig do you have?
Dark Jaguar Wrote:I forgot to mention that resting has been dropped in favor of something that ISN'T boring :D. Unless you are in a battle (in which case it SHOULD be disabled), your health and magic are constantly rising, and at a pretty good rate too. It's the best way to do it to really streamline all the boring parts so you just end up doing the fun things.
Then what's the incentive to stop yourself from getting hit? If you can just quickly restore your health once you win the battle without using a potion.
Game sounds nice, though.
The incentive is to NOT DIE, which you WILL if you keep getting hit!
All PC style RPGs have this "rest system" where your health is recovered JUST by sitting on the ground for about 10 minutes. That's boring, so they just sped it up and let you move around while doing it. Keep in mind it is disabled if you are in battle, so the whole thing where you keep getting attacked by aggressive monsters over and over will still finish you off.
Very beautiful artwork and design, OB1, is what you should be saying... :)
Yes the art is pretty. It's not my favorite kind of style, but for what it's trying to do it's doing it very well.
Hey how big is the world in the game, and how much will the monthly fee be? And is it mostly run and hit type gameplay?
Okay, the stress test has ended. I'm almsost positive I didn't win the contest though. First, I wasn't playing it nonstop like I'm sure hundreds were doing. Second, I spread out my play across all classes and races to experience it all. Unfortunatly, I only took pictures of the two strongest people, my undead warlock and my dwarven paladin. Turns out, the female dwarves don't have beards! Tis a shame to be sure, since everyone knows female dwarves have beards. And, since without a beard a dwarf is just a bulky hobbit, not a single player that I saw went with the female variety. Can ya blame them?
So, I'll now post the pics I DID take. Note I managed to sneak by "blizzard guardians", level infinity infernals who killed ANYONE who tried passing into incomplete areas. The only weakness? Ghosts can walk right by them :D.
Okay, here ya go.
Looks pretty neat. Now do you actually control your character or is it shitty Diablo-style where you click on the area where you want to go?
You can actually control the character for sure, OB1... though it is a good question to ask if you can also click somewhere to go there as well.
Why the hell would any non-idiotic person want that?
Because it requires less effort sometimes... just click and they go, instead of having to hold down 'walk forward' all the way over there... like KotOR with doors or chests or stuff, how you click on them and auto-go over to them.
I wish KotOR had had it as an option as well as clicking (for general movement, not just those special cases)... anyway, why is that so bad? You have to do it in all strategy games and topdown RPGs and I generally don't see a problem with that. The place Diablo-types get irritating isn't with movement, it's with combat -- how combat is just 'click on enemies fast'. THAT is the problem with such games.
Yeah, holding down on a button is so much harder than clicking on a button every .5 seconds.
You PC gamers are so damned impractical and illogical it makes me sick.
Both ways have their advantages and disadvantages. For a top-down game clearly clicking on where you want to go is greatly superior. For first person, clearly direct movement is better. But for third person? It could go either way... sure, most of the time in KotOR I use the direct control and like the fact that that is the main control scheme. But sometimes I definitely wish for click control. It'd make things like moving across zones so much easier, and it'd allow one of the major problems with combat -- that you can't give movement orders while paused -- to be easily fixed, among other things. And it lets you rest your hand, too. No holding down buttons. :)
Just like most PC gamers, you have a poor idea of what good controls are.
In answer to your question ABF (I think I sense someone else here from the context :D), yes, you can click to move. As you SEEM to be debating, there are a few times when this is quicker than direct control. Most of the time, I direct controlled, and anyway, direct control makes me actually FEEL like I'm in there if you catch my meaning, but sometimes I'd rather just click on an enemy and let my character move and auto-attack by itself.
I suppose I should explain a few more things. First off, you can jump. You aren't barricaded from parts of the world by small knee-high rocks. You can fall off any cliff you want. The only barrier is the ocean. The whole thing is one big world, no load times except when travelling between continents or into instanced zones. (An instanced zone is when you travel into a dungeon and it is seperated from the rest of The World, in that you and your party (and anyone you invite to your instance). In other words, multiple parties can go into the "same" dungeon and fight the black dragon, but it'll be a different dungeon and dragon. This keeps the "line syndrome" from forming where parties are lined up just waiting to fight that boss. Don't worry, most dungeons aren't instanced, so it's not like they are defeating the whole concept of MMORPG with that :D.)
ANYWAY, so in other words the game gives you the mobility you might expect from an adventure game like Zelda rather than an RPG. The battles are pretty free form too. You can attack while moving (so can the enemy, so don't try escaping unless you have a good escape plan, just get into fights you know you can win without that, unlike KOTOR with it's cheap "just run until you recover and then go back and smack up the guy you switched to melee mode!" trick), and you can control your character during battle for better attack positions. It's all turn based, so it's not really Zelda style total free-form fighting, but you get a lot of movement. That's mainly for the rogues though (they have a lot of back attacks). Anyway, a lot of spells have casting time, and those can't be cast while moving. (If it's an instant cast spell, it can.) When you are attacked, instead of just cancelling your spell, your spell's readiness meter is lowered by an amount. So, if you are casting something, while it'll be slowed down by enemy attacks, it'll eventually get through. I'd still recommend using the really long spells to START the battle or when you are in a party and some warrior is taking the major punches though. Anyway, whoever angers the enemy most gets attacked. You can anger the enemy by doing the most damage, casting the most buffs or debuffs, or healing everyone a lot. Basically, the enemy will target what it considers the most valuable team member, unless you know how to sorta space out things. Generally, keep the warrior as the guy taking the punches. Clerics should be spacing out their healing spells so they don't get targetted as much. Fortunatly, there are taunt style moves that raise the anger level towards whoever cast it, or lowers it towards the caster. Those are very helpful to keep the party moving smoothly and at maximum power. Oh yes, there ARE super powerful moves that will stun you, those WILL cancel out spells that are still being prepaired.
PVP is cool. In full PVP servers, anyone from one faction can freely attack people from the other faction whenever they want. I dunno, some people like it. Others don't like being stalked or taken out by crueller players. In partial, the PVP is, as far as I'm concerned, completely perfect. If you want to challenge some random person to battle, you right click on them and just challenge them. They can refuse or accept the challenge just like that. If they refuse, tough luck. You can't just freely attack whoever you want, and that's the way it should be. Some people actually want a chance to PLAY the game. Nothing like starting a brand new one of these and being killed, REPEATEDLY, by some idiot who likes "newb hunting" for HOURS on end. The game engine itself needs to have a system to defeat jackarsery. Some people actually are UPSET that you can't just freely attack people on these servers. Honestly, these are the people who these servers are made to PROTECT everyone else from. The only reason I can think of for them to be upset is because they can't annoy people or hunt newbies any more. Boo hoo. Anyway, aside from the simple consensual dueling system, there's the war system. The game is CALLED Warcraft, so a way for massive battles between factions NEEDS to be in there somehow, even in partial PVP servers. They found a great solution. When you enter a region controlled by the enemy faction, you'll be informed. You can't target them, and they can't target you, YET. However, those NPCs there... Hmm.... You see, if you want to start a war, here's what you do. You gather your forces (since taking on an entire village with just you is called "kamikaze", and the Japanese didn't do too well with that strategy...), and then you rush forward and attack, the NPCs! :D You see, you can freely attack the enemy side's NPCs. This ALONE won't allow you to attack enemy players, but the enemy faction NEEDS those NPCs. If you take them all out, you win control over that area after all and get to use the NPCs yourself. However, by attacking the NPCs, you have given yourself PVP status (which lasts 5 minutes after the last time you attacked the enemy faction, so keep it up if you want that mode to last forever). Under PVP status, anyone on the enemy faction, ANYONE, can, and will, attack you. The SECOND they attack you though, they gain PVP status, and you can now counter them. So, the battles start with one side smashing into the NPC guards standing outside the city (they will fight back, and they will also freely attack anyone of the enemy faction who has PVP status themselves, they are guards after all). then quickly after that, anyone who wants to join in will defend the city by attacking the attackers, with that, everyone who attacked will be attacked now by the invaders (who should have made quick work of the NPCs by then, if not, they were stupid and didn't prepair for the difficulty level of that city). In this way, massive wars can break out, BUT anyone who doesn't want a part of it can simply not attack anyone and they won't be in PVP status, and can just go about their business. Note that not even area effect attacks will be able to hurt someone who hasn't consented to combat in one way or another. Basically, this system easily allows people who either just want to play the game (or know they are far too weak to standup to anything and will just end up running back to their corpse a few times trying to escape), to actually just play the game peacefully, while at the same time allow people who love WAR (what is it good for? Absolutely everything!) to bash it out and have it quickly escalate into a huge scene worthy of pictures... if you actually have the good sense to TAKE a few during these epic brawls! *hits self*
Quote:Just like most PC gamers, you have a poor idea of what good controls are.
What a stupid comment, OB1. Think about it for a minuite. Really. First, I do not understand why you think that mouse-click controls are so horrible. This makes no sense. Are you saying that direct controls, which in KotOR means 'holding down the W key', are better than mouse? In KotOR you have three choices. W, holding down BOTH mouse buttons to move forward, or (left) clicking on a person or object you can interact with and having your person automatically move over to that object and open it. Now... I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Are you saying that all of those are bad and that smart people would get it for X-Box and use it on a gamepad? Gamepads have their own advantages sure, but for a game with the purposes of KotOR having digital control instead of analog doesn't mean much. This is not exactly a platformer where precision counts for much of anything, and it's got auto-run (why you'd want to go slower is beyond me), so I can't think of any solid reason why a gamepad would be massively different from keyboard. Holding down both mouse buttons proves this -- that gets you analog movement with the mouse, after all! But this is actually probably worse than keyboard because using the mouse like that for long periods of time isn't too fun and as I said in this game analog or digital isn't much of a difference. This isn't Rayman, after all. Keyboard works just fine in every possible way I can imagine (while I will definitely disagree with you about how far you go when you attack PC controls, at least for some games -- Rayman, Rogue Squadron, BG&E, etc -- I can see where there is a decent point that they are in some way inferior... I don't see that for KotOR.)
Mouse-click movement (like a MMORPG) is obviously very different. Click location, watch people go there. Simple, elegant... and much less tiresome when you are traversing long distances. Think about it. Tatooine. It's got a sizable desert to explore. If you have to cross it it takes quite some time and holding down the button (either keyboard or mouse) while you do that is tiresome. It'd be much more enjoyable if all I had to do was click where I wanted to go to and watch as my people went there... it's not as tedious or tiresome, after all! What is so horrible about wanting this in games like this? You have not presented any arguement against it (as usual, just insults) so I don't know... but I'd really like to hear why you think it is such a bad idea. It seems so obvious to me and it works so well as the alternate movement scheme in MMORPGs (where it is virtually ubiquous) that it seems like asking for it in other third-person RPGs should be an obvious point. Sure, it won't be your main movement form, WASD will. But as I said there are enough uses where it would be nice to see that I am certain that the game would be better off with it in.
Quote:In answer to your question ABF (I think I sense someone else here from the context ), yes, you can click to move. As you SEEM to be debating, there are a few times when this is quicker than direct control. Most of the time, I direct controlled, and anyway, direct control makes me actually FEEL like I'm in there if you catch my meaning, but sometimes I'd rather just click on an enemy and let my character move and auto-attack by itself.
Sounds about like what I was saying, DJ... most of the time direct control is better, but once in a while it's nice to be able to click and have the person go there. Sure, it's not a function I use much in games I have played that have both forms of control available (like the alpha of guild wars I think), but I use it just often enough to think it's nice to see it there.
Let's take KotOR. Tatooine (which I just finished; Kashyyk now). Large desert areas. It is quite tedious to have to hold down the run button while you traverse a huge desert area. It'd be much more fun to just click 'move' on the other end of the desert and see my person go there. In BG you have to click on the ground to move, of course, but you can tell your people to go anywhere that has already been explored with a single click. It's only the unknown that you have to retarget each time they get to their new location, but with the game design of the Infinity titles that is generally a good thing because you need to be able to see and react to things up ahead... this is the one problem I can see with implementing this function in a KotOR-style game. What if I click across the screen and auto-run into some encounter that I would have approached differently if I had been directly controlling it? With a 3d viewpoint this can't be avoided unless you have stupid close fog or some kind of mouseclick-move command that only lets you go to places you have revealed on the map or something... it COULD work, but it could also be annoying. But I think they could deal with that problem if they wanted to and it would be a welcome addition to the title.
As I (and you) said, while it isn't a feature that you use very much it's nice to use once in a while (and I think the Tatooine desert is a good example of a place where it would definitely be useful), and KotOR should definitely have fully implemented this function and not restricted it to just when you are clicking on people or objects to interact with.
Quote:I suppose I should explain a few more things. First off, you can jump. You aren't barricaded from parts of the world by small knee-high rocks. You can fall off any cliff you want. The only barrier is the ocean. The whole thing is one big world, no load times except when travelling between continents or into instanced zones. (An instanced zone is when you travel into a dungeon and it is seperated from the rest of The World, in that you and your party (and anyone you invite to your instance). In other words, multiple parties can go into the "same" dungeon and fight the black dragon, but it'll be a different dungeon and dragon. This keeps the "line syndrome" from forming where parties are lined up just waiting to fight that boss. Don't worry, most dungeons aren't instanced, so it's not like they are defeating the whole concept of MMORPG with that .)
Jumping... interesting. Not exactly a common function in RPGs! ... okay, more like 'nearly nonexistant'... cool to see though. :) Instanced zones are also great. Definitely better than the alternative, I think.
The whole thing is one big world (excepting continents)? And inside cities as well (as in no load to go from city to countryside around it)?
Quote:What an idiotic comment, OB1. Can you not comprehend that while most of the time holding a button (or pushing a stick forward) is preferred, sometimes clicking on a point and watching your people go there is also preferred? I'd think that it would be pretty simple to think of cases where each of the two is more useful than the other. And by 'i think it'd be pretty simple' I mean that it should be blatantly obvious if you think about it for a minuite or two. Hmm, do I want to hold the button down for the next two minuites as I run across the Tatooine dunes or click on the edge of the screen and rest my arm? HARD DECISION!
What are you going to suggest next, that top-down games should also use direct controls instead of clicking? Now THAT would work great in a PC RPG! ... oh wait, it'd be a recipe for disaster...
You're not in direct control of your characters when you are clicking on the screen where you want them to go, who you want them to hit, etc. Those are simply
bad,
lazy controls. There's no other way of putting it. If Miyamoto is the master of controls, the main man who realizes that controls are the most important part of a game, those PC game designers who utilize such lazy and indirect means of clicky controls are the exact opposite. I know
so many people like you, ABF.
SO many people who have an utter disregard for and a complete lack and want of understanding good controls. It's a damn shame that the most important part of games is slowly fading away as an afterthought to so many gamers. I mean if holding down a button for an extended period of time is
so tedious for you then you shouldn't even bother playing games at all. It's because of people like you that games might become reduced to simple point-and-click interactive movies that require very little effort on the player's behalf.
I completely replaced that paragraph, OB1, because I thought it was too harsh... I can't expect you to act nicer if I write things like that, really, so I redid it.
Quote:You're not in direct control of your characters when you are clicking on the screen where you want them to go, who you want them to hit, etc. Those are simply bad, lazy controls. There's no other way of putting it. If Miyamoto is the master of controls, the main man who realizes that controls are the most important part of a game, those PC game designers who utilize such lazy and indirect means of clicky controls are the exact opposite. I know so many people like you, ABF. SO many people who have an utter disregard for and a complete lack and want of understanding good controls. It's a damn shame that the most important part of games is slowly fading away as an afterthought to so many gamers. I mean if holding down a button for an extended period of time is so tedious for you then you shouldn't even bother playing games at all. It's because of people like you that games might become reduced to simple point-and-click interactive movies that require very little effort on the player's behalf.
I quite defintely disagree. Honestly, this arguement just doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Wait, giving the players more options controls-wise is destroying gaming? What the heck?
What do you mean you aren't in control of them? Of course you are! Is it so much more realistic to press up and down on the analog stick or whatever you do to switch targets (or move the target over the enemy you wish to target and pressing the button or however you select something in the X-Box version) than it is to move the mouse over said target and click on it? Um... not to any appreciable extent. No, what matters is how easy the controls are to use, how well they work once you get used to them, how fun the game is with this control scheme... you do what works best in your game. If mouse controls work, why not? "Lazy"? Huh? Okay, so it requires less work on the part of the gamer. Whoopie. Why is this such a big deal?
Good controls are when I play the game and have no problems with anything in the control scheme. Bad controls are when you have things like long reaction times or horribly designed interfaces. "Good" or "Bad" controls are in no way linked to the format the controls use (gamepad, mouse, keyboard, etc), and your suggestion, I believe, that there is a link here is foolish.
Consoles are not intrinsically better than PCs. Gamepads aren't better by nature than keyboards or mice. A game is not "lazily designed" because it uses the mouse to click on and interact with things as opposed to having direct keyboard movement! It could well be the other way around, depending on case!
As for KotOR, I obviously want it to have good controls and interface. If I did not I would not have listed as many small irritations in those categories as I have. But I have, so obviously I wish KotOR to have good controls... the problem here I guess is the definition of "good" controls and yours doesn't really make sense to me.
Yeah well too late, I already spent enough time writing that post.
I only replaced that part of that post (the part you quoted, strangely), not the rest...
Anyway, I replied.
That was the part directed to me.
In answer ABF, yes, the whole world, excepting when you travel between continents (since sitting on a boat or airship watching endless water would tax both the servers and the player) is seamless. You can walk from the inside of the crypt where undead start, into the city, to the surrounding land (past the gates), along the countryside, into a whole new region (new map), with all sorts of different textures, into a new town, and deep into a large building, without EVER seeing a load screen, EVER. It's all dynamically loaded in the background! Again, the exceptions are instanced zones and travelling between continents.
Oh yes, as you can probably tell by the pictures, you can swim. Undead don't need to breathe, so they can hang out underwater forever. If you try to actually SWIM between continents, that is, go into the ocean, when you get a certain distance from shore, an exxaustion timer will appear. So, you can't swim to Kalimdor. This timer doesn't appear unless you attempt to swim between continents though. It's basically just a fail safe.
Ya know, playing KOTOR, I found it convienient to just be able to select something by L+R scrolling between targets and click, and my character just walks there and opens the chest automatically. In a platformer of course, such a thing would totally kill the gameplay, because the controls ARE the gameplay. In an RPG, controls aren't the actual gameplay itself, just the way the player gets to the gameplay, so making them as easy and seamless as possible is a requirement.
I disagree with that, which is one of the main problems I have with PC rpgs. The whole point of an RPG is to feel like you're in the game world controlling a player, yet it's acceptable for developers (and it seems, PC gamers) to give you almost as much control over your player as you do in The Sims. I hate that. It ruins the immersion. It makes the whole point of the game just to hear a story, and controlling your character is simply a means to an end. That's bad game design.
This is a nice artistic decision. As you may or may not know, if you play a game like this, you'll be finding yourself dead fairly often, so I thought this was at least somewhat interesting.
<img src="http://www.tcforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=947&stc=1">
As you can see above, the spirit healer in the current beta is a grim reaper looking spirit who's figure fades out of existance around the neck area up. It's a nice artistic thing in and of itself, but it really doesn't scream "healer of the world". Seems more like a figure interested in KEEPING you dead actually. Indeed, a few NPCs with the same model are wandering around the Undead Undercity.
Anyway, Blizzard has replaced this healer with someone a little more befitting the part.
<img src="http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/screenshots/images/death/ss03.jpg">
Now THAT'S a spiritual healer! This is a being that actually looks like it would be ready and willing to perform miracles to heal the heroes of the world (and in an MMORPG, just about every single person wandering around is a great legendary hero (well, actually the game's story when talking to NPCs is meant to give each player the impression that they are special and unique in the world, destined for greater things than the average warrior, but you know that's just what everyone hears :D)). For that matter, the world when dead appears even more different now, making it even harder to get any sort of free scouting when dead (they already made it so you can't see any NPCs, PCs, or monsters when a ghost, until you are within ressurection range of your corpse that is, in which case they let you see stuff and choose where in that range you come back so as to make sure you don't come back just to die again). The whole world seems almost totally blued out now, which is fitting. Also, the whole style of the non-corporeal side of the world is quite different now. I like it.
Anyway, I think a slight change to the text and this will be a great, though purely visual, change.
Oh yes, it seems Blizzard has plans to actually encorporate special quests you can only get in ghost mode. You may actually want to die just to go on these special ghost related quests. I don't think any fighting will be involved when you are non-corporeal though :D.
Quote:Ya know, playing KOTOR, I found it convienient to just be able to select something by L+R scrolling between targets and click, and my character just walks there and opens the chest automatically. In a platformer of course, such a thing would totally kill the gameplay, because the controls ARE the gameplay. In an RPG, controls aren't the actual gameplay itself, just the way the player gets to the gameplay, so making them as easy and seamless as possible is a requirement.
Exactly. This is an RPG, not a platformer. It doesn't need that kind of control precision... walking is just a means to an end, not the end itsself like it is in platformers. And one goal of a good RPG is reducing tedium. I really like the auto-go-to-chest feature and definitely use it fairly frequently. And no, OB1, I don't see it as a feature that reduces my immersion. See, I'm using a 'control mechanism' (keyboard/mouse in this case). I'm not actually that person. So immersion controls-wise can only go so far. And I really don't find it hard at all to be immersed in the game while clicking on a chest to go to the chest... I don't see how that is a harm to immersion or gameplay in any way, shape, or form. It's just a little feature that makes the game more enjoyable... that's all. Really.
Quote:I disagree with that, which is one of the main problems I have with PC rpgs. The whole point of an RPG is to feel like you're in the game world controlling a player, yet it's acceptable for developers (and it seems, PC gamers) to give you almost as much control over your player as you do in The Sims. I hate that. It ruins the immersion. It makes the whole point of the game just to hear a story, and controlling your character is simply a means to an end. That's bad game design.
Guess I'll just have to repeat to OB1 how I don't agree at all... though this is a bit more detail. I still don't agree at all though. :) It is a good topic though...
A good comparison would be the adventure game genre. Grim Fandango used a gamepad as a control scheme. That alone means direct control... but that could mean little or much depending on the interface. Grim decided to do a unobtrusive interface. Nothing on screen except the character. The (new for that game) 'head turns towards objects you can interact with' design instead of lighting up objects or having you click on them. And the inventory that has you flipping between things in your coat. Was it more immersive? In a slight way, sure. It was. BUT... it wasn't massive. I wasn't suddenly thinking of how much more I identify with the character or something. Yeah, it's a fantastic game and probably my favorite adventure game. But the control scheme is just one of many reasons for that. And one of the least, for sure. That design worked for that game but I would not want all adventure games to be like that. Traditional mouse controls are good too.
Yes, controlling a character with a mouse is less personal and maybe less immersive. But as I said (or implied) it's more about what the game is trying to do, what the interface has to do, and, most importantly, WHAT IS FUN. A PC RPG is a complex game. You have to deal with lots of options, abilities, a complex interface, lots of menus... KotOR is a simplified PC RPG, certainly, but even in that form it's got a lot of complexity. That pretty much requires a complex interface. That means no minimilist stuff like Grim Fandango... and you know what? Onscreen displays or menus aren't very immersive. :) And you need them. And even more so in the top-down titles, where you must have an even more complex interface because you can't have the attack commands hovering above your target like they do in a 3d title... you need a row of buttons for those.
The point being that this is an RPG. That means that I want to be able to control my character and my party. I want formation commands. I want lists of spells on a onscreen menu instead of having to flip through them one at a time. I want 'unrealistic' elements like being able to assign movement orders while paused, in addition to attack orders. Why? Because they make the game more fun! Realism is all well and good, but realism at the cost of enjoyment is bad. And make no mistake, if PC RPGs went the way you suggest they'd be worse. Simplicity for simplicity's sake is not necessarially a good thing. When complexity makes the game better, make the game more complex. And I would DEFINITELY say that more complex interfaces and command systems make PC RPGs better games. Immersion? Fine, so I'm not directly telling my people to walk forward. And I'm looking at 2d art from a top view instead of a 3d representation of what they see. You know what? I forget that. When I play BG I don't consider the control scheme to be a block to my immersion any more than I do the graphics. Fine, 3d might allow for more immersion in some senses. But in plenty of others it's no better. I like the look of top-down RPGs. I think Baldur's Gate is a beautiful game. Do you think that you ARE the character? Maybe not, but you don't in 3d titles either for the most part. But really my point is that I am not particularly more immersed in, say, KotOR than I am in BGII. The graphical and control differences are there, but that doesn't definitely decide it for one title or the other... each has advantages and disadvantages immersion-wise on these fronts, after all. But if I really had to choose I'd pick BGII over KotOR as the more immersive game. Maybe it's partially the fact that I have four times more gameplay time in BGII, but at this point I'd pick it over KotOR as more immersive every time. No question.
And from the gameplay front (the overall gameplay front), BGII crushes KotOR. I greatly prefer its interface and control scheme, no question, and its gameplay is better as well on most all categories... not to say KotOR is bad, it's not, and not to say that KotOR isn't better than BGII in ANY way (as I said, KotOR has better other-party-member character development, as one example of where it bests BGII), but overall BGII definitely wins.
In short, it's called an 'imagination', OB1. Use it when you play BG.
Quote:Exactly. This is an RPG, not a platformer. It doesn't need that kind of control precision... walking is just a means to an end, not the end itsself like it is in platformers. And one goal of a good RPG is reducing tedium. I really like the auto-go-to-chest feature and definitely use it fairly frequently. And no, OB1, I don't see it as a feature that reduces my immersion. See, I'm using a 'control mechanism' (keyboard/mouse in this case). I'm not actually that person. So immersion controls-wise can only go so far. And I really don't find it hard at all to be immersed in the game while clicking on a chest to go to the chest... I don't see how that is a harm to immersion or gameplay in any way, shape, or form. It's just a little feature that makes the game more enjoyable... that's all. Really.
You're barely even controlling the character and when you do that and it turns into The Sims where you just tell it what to do.
Quote:Guess I'll just have to repeat to OB1 how I don't agree at all... though this is a bit more detail. I still don't agree at all though. It is a good topic though...
A good comparison would be the adventure game genre. Grim Fandango used a gamepad as a control scheme. That alone means direct control... but that could mean little or much depending on the interface. Grim decided to do a unobtrusive interface. Nothing on screen except the character. The (new for that game) 'head turns towards objects you can interact with' design instead of lighting up objects or having you click on them. And the inventory that has you flipping between things in your coat. Was it more immersive? In a slight way, sure. It was. BUT... it wasn't massive. I wasn't suddenly thinking of how much more I identify with the character or something. Yeah, it's a fantastic game and probably my favorite adventure game. But the control scheme is just one of many reasons for that. And one of the least, for sure. That design worked for that game but I would not want all adventure games to be like that. Traditional mouse controls are good too.
Yes, controlling a character with a mouse is less personal and maybe less immersive. But as I said (or implied) it's more about what the game is trying to do, what the interface has to do, and, most importantly, WHAT IS FUN. A PC RPG is a complex game. You have to deal with lots of options, abilities, a complex interface, lots of menus... KotOR is a simplified PC RPG, certainly, but even in that form it's got a lot of complexity. That pretty much requires a complex interface. That means no minimilist stuff like Grim Fandango... and you know what? Onscreen displays or menus aren't very immersive. And you need them. And even more so in the top-down titles, where you must have an even more complex interface because you can't have the attack commands hovering above your target like they do in a 3d title... you need a row of buttons for those.
The point being that this is an RPG. That means that I want to be able to control my character and my party. I want formation commands. I want lists of spells on a onscreen menu instead of having to flip through them one at a time. I want 'unrealistic' elements like being able to assign movement orders while paused, in addition to attack orders. Why? Because they make the game more fun! Realism is all well and good, but realism at the cost of enjoyment is bad. And make no mistake, if PC RPGs went the way you suggest they'd be worse. Simplicity for simplicity's sake is not necessarially a good thing. When complexity makes the game better, make the game more complex. And I would DEFINITELY say that more complex interfaces and command systems make PC RPGs better games. Immersion? Fine, so I'm not directly telling my people to walk forward. And I'm looking at 2d art from a top view instead of a 3d representation of what they see. You know what? I forget that. When I play BG I don't consider the control scheme to be a block to my immersion any more than I do the graphics. Fine, 3d might allow for more immersion in some senses. But in plenty of others it's no better. I like the look of top-down RPGs. I think Baldur's Gate is a beautiful game. Do you think that you ARE the character? Maybe not, but you don't in 3d titles either for the most part. But really my point is that I am not particularly more immersed in, say, KotOR than I am in BGII. The graphical and control differences are there, but that doesn't definitely decide it for one title or the other... each has advantages and disadvantages immersion-wise on these fronts, after all. But if I really had to choose I'd pick BGII over KotOR as the more immersive game. Maybe it's partially the fact that I have four times more gameplay time in BGII, but at this point I'd pick it over KotOR as more immersive every time. No question.
And from the gameplay front (the overall gameplay front), BGII crushes KotOR. I greatly prefer its interface and control scheme, no question, and its gameplay is better as well on most all categories... not to say KotOR is bad, it's not, and not to say that KotOR isn't better than BGII in ANY way (as I said, KotOR has better other-party-member character development, as one example of where it bests BGII), but overall BGII definitely wins.
In short, it's called an 'imagination', OB1. Use it when you play BG.
How you ended that retarded explanation with "it's called an imagination" is beyond me. So basically what you're saying is that you need an imagination to like shitty controls that barely even let you the player directly control your character.
I'd say that makes about as much sense as any of your posts, Brian. You rarely, if ever, make a lick of sense. I don't know what it is, perhaps in that strange world you live in everything you see is distorted to fit your odd perspective.
The simple fact of the matter is that point and click controls in games where you control a single person (and yes having people in your party while you only control one person's direct movement counts) is lazy and poor control design. It works in strategy games because the character you are playing is actually yourself, and the direct control is your own self. When you use the same philosophy in a game like KOTOR what you're doing is reducing the player/character interaction to Sims-like levels, and you are no longer the character.
If you like it that's fine. If you like to eat fecal matter that is also fine. But don't try telling me that it tastes good.
Quote:How you ended that retarded explanation with "it's called an imagination" is beyond me. So basically what you're saying is that you need an imagination to like shitty controls that barely even let you the player directly control your character.
I'd say that makes about as much sense as any of your posts, Brian. You rarely, if ever, make a lick of sense. I don't know what it is, perhaps in that strange world you live in everything you see is distorted to fit your odd perspective.
The simple fact of the matter is that point and click controls in games where you control a single person (and yes having people in your party while you only control one person's direct movement counts) is lazy and poor control design. It works in strategy games because the character you are playing is actually yourself, and the direct control is your own self. When you use the same philosophy in a game like KOTOR what you're doing is reducing the player/character interaction to Sims-like levels, and you are no longer the character.
If you like it that's fine. If you like to eat fecal matter that is also fine. But don't try telling me that it tastes good.
I was trying to explain how I disagree with your (flawed) depiction of interaction, "good" controls, etc. It's not my fault if thought is too much for you... :P
I said "it's called imagination" because a big part of games is of course imagination... if you spend the whole time you're playing BGII thinking 'i hate this' of course you will hate it, but when I play it it's just natural. Part is certainly how many hours I have put into that engine, so for me it is natural, but my point is that I do not view that interface as a significant block to immersion. Sure, it's less immersive in some respects than Grim Fandango. But as I said it really can't be. Not if it wants to be a good game. So instead it uses the system that works best, as all good games should. And if you have the imagination to look at the game and play it as a game depicting a world, you'll have fun. It shouldn't take much to get past the point where you aren't bothered by the control scheme and Baldur's Gate II is immersing you just as much as KotOR. Play each one for ten minuites and KotOR probably is more immersive because of the graphics (I don't count controls for a whole lot as far as immersion goes, it's more about graphics and interface on screen... like, Grim Fandango. Its use of the gamepad actually means a more complex and harder to use control scheme than a standard adventure game one of the period. And thinking about it, how different would GF be with a normal scheme? Somewhat, but not hugely. I VERY highly doubt that it'd affect the immersion or quality of the game. Certainly not for me at least. But I guess I just have a better imagination (for lack of a better word) for these things than you...
Anyway, back to the point. BG uses what works. It's not immediately the most immersive system, but if you play it a lot you'll get drawn in and will forget all the little things like having to move people by mouse commands. At least I, and certainly many, many others, feel this way. Fine, I have to use the mouse to click and move them. So? For one thing BG has six people to control, not one, so it's got to have some kind of compromise... this is just the best one. It's not lazy. It's not bad design. It is the exact opposite of those two things. It is great design and it would be much lazier to implement some stupid direct control scheme into a BG-type topdown game. It would have a very low chance of working well and certainly would never be half as good as BG's... but then as I've said I'd take the BG control system over the KotOR control system any day. You disagree, which is okay, but you really shouldn't be acting like it's morally indefensible and actually is destroying gaming to suggest that there could be an advantage to a less direct form of control and/or more control complexity. It's stupid and wrong. As I said, the control scheme, to me, has not been a significant block in any way, shape, or form to be being immersed in Baldur's Gate. If you want things that do that look at things like how sometimes you can see things on the other sides of walls. THAT is breaking the immersion. But merely using the mouse to control my characters from a top-down perspective? No, once you get used to it it can be quite immersive, and it is to me. It's sad that it isn't to you because those are some of the best games of all time.
I just fundamentally cannot understand how you could consider something as simple as clicking to move to point B or holding down the button to go to point B such a big difference in gameplay and design. I do not see it that way. They are very similar in most all ways. They are different, have somewhat different applications... but you have gone on a huge rant against this and I still don't quite understand what you are ranting against... or rather why you are ranting against it. Clicking to move is an issue THIS big? It just makes no sense at all to me. It is not a big issue!
Grim Fandango is unique because of its interface, but more so because of great game design. Escape from Monkey Island uses the same interface but is a much worse game... I was definitely more immersed in Curse of Monkey Island, a traditional mouse-click adventure, than I was in Escape. That is just one example of how good game design counts far more than some little thing like the controls.
KotOR vs. Baldur's Gate is the same, though much less extreme since the quality differnce between KotOR and BGII is a lot closer than CoMI and EFMI.
Quote:I was trying to explain how I disagree with your (flawed) depiction of interaction, "good" controls, etc. It's not my fault if thought is too much for you... :P
I said "it's called imagination" because a big part of games is of course imagination... if you spend the whole time you're playing BGII thinking 'i hate this' of course you will hate it, but when I play it it's just natural. Part is certainly how many hours I have put into that engine, so for me it is natural, but my point is that I do not view that interface as a significant block to immersion. Sure, it's less immersive in some respects than Grim Fandango. But as I said it really can't be. Not if it wants to be a good game. So instead it uses the system that works best, as all good games should. And if you have the imagination to look at the game and play it as a game depicting a world, you'll have fun. It shouldn't take much to get past the point where you aren't bothered by the control scheme and Baldur's Gate II is immersing you just as much as KotOR. Play each one for ten minuites and KotOR probably is more immersive because of the graphics (I don't count controls for a whole lot as far as immersion goes, it's more about graphics and interface on screen... like, Grim Fandango. Its use of the gamepad actually means a more complex and harder to use control scheme than a standard adventure game one of the period. And thinking about it, how different would GF be with a normal scheme? Somewhat, but not hugely. I VERY highly doubt that it'd affect the immersion or quality of the game. Certainly not for me at least. But I guess I just have a better imagination (for lack of a better word) for these things than you...
You say this because you don't even understand the meaning of good control design. You are fine with crap, which is great for you, but it is still crap that you're fine with. :p
Quote:Anyway, back to the point. BG uses what works. It's not immediately the most immersive system, but if you play it a lot you'll get drawn in and will forget all the little things like having to move people by mouse commands. At least I, and certainly many, many others, feel this way. Fine, I have to use the mouse to click and move them. So? For one thing BG has six people to control, not one, so it's got to have some kind of compromise... this is just the best one.
You control the main character and the other members follow your character. I already explained that.
Quote:I just fundamentally cannot understand how you could consider something as simple as clicking to move to point B or holding down the button to go to point B such a big difference in gameplay and design.
I do not see it that way. They are very similar in most all ways. They are different, have somewhat different applications... but you have gone on a huge rant against this and I still don't quite understand what you are ranting against... or rather why you are ranting against it. Clicking to move is an issue THIS big? It just makes no sense at all to me. It is not a big issue!
Exactly, you cannot even comprehend the idea of proper controls. Which is why I'm trying to educate you, even though I know deep down inside (well... really not
that deep down) that you will not or cannot try to understand me.
Quote:Grim Fandango is unique because of its interface, but more so because of great game design. Escape from Monkey Island uses the same interface but is a much worse game... I was definitely more immersed in Curse of Monkey Island, a traditional mouse-click adventure, than I was in Escape. That is just one example of how good game design counts far more than some little thing like the controls.
Ah but if CoMI had better controls it would be an even better game.
Quote:KotOR vs. Baldur's Gate is the same, though much less extreme since the quality differnce between KotOR and BGII is a lot closer than CoMI and EFMI.
The Baldur's Gate games completely disinterest me, and why is that? Well first we have to look at why I play these games to begin with. It's certainly not for the stories which I could do much better with a book and it's not really for the combat which isn't all that. I like playing RPGs to become a part of a world, to inhabit a certain character and go on adventures. I cannot feel like I'm in that world if I'm seeing it from a bird's eye view, now can I? Then it's just like I'm a bird magically controlling a bunch of characters. If I'm not feeling like I'm
in the game then there is no point to it. If I want to use my imagination to make the game not suck then why the fuck am I playing a game at all?? I could just run around the woods pretending the same damn stuff but with even more freedom and immersion. If the gameplay and/or story is good enough, however, then the perspective doesn't matter.
Honestly, I've never ACTUALLY "forgetten it was only a game", or LITERALLY "thought I WAS the character". I mean, those are just expressions and all, and I know no one actually feels that, but you know, thought I'd say that.
Simplicity, complexity, do what works for the game you are going for.
I agree with you ABF, in some games, the mouse interface is the best option. It's not about making the game "too easy". In no way does having to move around manually aid the challenge of these games in any way shape or form. In a console RPG for example, you can't even MOVE your characters during battle. You just tell them what to do and watch them do it and they decide exactly where to move by themselves. Chrono Trigger STILL rocks though, and in part it could be BECAUSE of that (having to deal with movement would be a burden that wouldn't affect challenge or fun in any way).
In some games, half the gameplay is in the direct control of your character though. I mean, in Zelda for example, it would NOT be Zelda at ALL if the interface was such that you could just click to go "over there" and watch as Link automatically makes that perfect jump across one platform to the other, climbs the ladder, and just starts attacking the enemy in an automatic timed fasion, with you just clicking to change his attack style. Sure, it could still, in theory, be fun, but it would be a totally different game and kill the gameplay. (A teacher I had once actually suggested they DO this to Zelda, to which I enquired exactly how many Zelda games the guy had played, the answer was "a couple minutes of the one with the flute". He was a hardcore PC gamer, not a bad thing but it puts a bias on console games that is unfair, to say the least.) I mean, just imagine if archery suddenly became automatic, select the enemy and watch Link fire with "hit" and "miss" messages. It would be horrible! I mean, the point is YOUR aim, not making choices based on Link's "aim" stat! If they made such a drastic change, the entire way you battled that stalfos would change to something totally different! Instead of you having to dodge and see the opening in the enemy's attack and fly in there hoping it doesn't raise it's shield in time (perhaps just guarding until the enemy lunges with a particularly drawn out strike, and dodging JUST in the nick of time to run up behind the enemy and slice it's back with a jumping slash), you are now purely the tactician of the battle, basically telling the player HOW to fight but not exactly direct control of each moment. It's now the standard "polite taking of turns" as they smack each other until one falls down, no "dodging and feeling the rush", rather, you decide to tell the character TO dodge and watch it get carried out on your character's turn.
It's vastly different. I love RPGs, and I love Zelda style Adventure games, but they are totally different beasts and a big PART of that is the control method. That IS the gameplay a lot of the time. However, not EVERY game needs to be controlled like Zelda to be good. If Fire Emblem controlled like Zelda, it wouldn't be a strategy game, it would be a Zelda game. You could theoretically win every single battle your forces got in not based on overall tactics, but on your quick reflexes, intuition, and fighting skills in the individual battles. That's fun, I love Zelda after all, but it's NOT tactics, and that's exactly what Fire Emblem IS. (Incidentally, Fire Emblem doesn't let you directly control your characters at all, but hey, I still feel pretty immersed.)
In that vein, a PC RPG, for example, does not need to control like Zelda to be good. Being able to directly control your character is helpful, helpful enough that just about all the ones I've played do allow that (standard wasd walking), but it doesn't affect gameplay or even immersion. I didn't feel like I was "cheating" or "being cheap" or "being led by the hand" in any fasion just because I told the character to walk to the door and open it by itself rather than actually directly navigating my character and pressing the action button. Such direct control is not where the gameplay lies. It would even work in Final Fantasy VI. Telling Terra to walk over there by herself woudln't hurt it in any way really, because there's no "live action" style gameplay in that game, with only a few somewhat fun diversions (following the light in the tunnel, but even that was a memory game, not a "keep up with Dante" game, so clicking wouldn't cheapen it in any way, unless of course you were allowed to use a follow command on the light thing :D). Really, the gameplay lies in the choices you make, so the control scheme's main role is in making it as easy to realize your decisions as possible. I wouldn't want to have to suddenly hit X at just the right moment as the "fight" option swings back and forth past a "reticule" of some sort just to be able to attack in every battle, because that's not the sort of game this is! Save something like that for a small mini-game. Instead, just let me pick the attack command, and then from there I'll pick the various spells or stances or special abilities I want to use.
Again, if I'm playing Super Mario Sunshine, the whole game is based around live events, heck it IS one. All the gameplay is in direct control and how skilled you are at jumping from platform to platform, bouncing off walls, and finding hidden stars or whatever whereever you can. Any automation hurts the gameplay rather than helps it. In an RPG, the game is NOT about that. Indeed, direct control is there just so you can align yourself just right in those tight spots or make easier turns. It's not about that perfect timing for the jump, making sure you don't jump too soon, that sort of thing. It's about thinking your way through, deciding WHAT to do and letting the game do it for you after that. Thus, they concentrate totally on giving you lots and lots of choices and the control scheme HAS to be as quick as possible so you can spend your time worrying about what spell you need to cast when you engage that enemy up ahead. It's about your player character's existing stats, and you in the real world have to make decisions on what they should do given your various character's abilities. RPGs, by their nature, loose a bit of immersiveness this way (ALL of them), but it's fine, because it's STILL great fun, and great gameplay! Again, only being able to directly control your character wouldn't create any challenges with the gameplay, just some frustrations in navigation.
However, I see many times when the indirect control DOES kinda cheapen things. For example, there are times when you can click on an area within your sight when you have no idea how to get there, and your character just automatically navigates the correct path. This however does not discredit the whole method, just the execution in this instance. If the pathing AI was set up so that it couldn't automatically path through areas you hadn't explored yet, or where no path has been discovered by you the player, this would be fixed, and we could all get on with our lives.
Adventure games, the PC kind... Ah yes, there's an example of where a point and click interface is BETTER than a direct control scheme. Grim Fandango (and yes, even Monkey Island 4, for all it's failings), were fun games, but I had to fault the control scheme. Really, the whole direct control thing just didn't add anything to the game for me, and more often than not, it actually made things frustrating (alligning my character "just so" so it FINALLY looks at the thing I want for example, rather than moving my cursor to the object I want to manipulate and clicking on it). Strategy games are another where indirect control is FAR superior, in all senses, than any direct control. In fact, I've yet to see a single strategy game that HAS direct control of any sort.
Quote:You control the main character and the other members follow your character. I already explained that.
And when I first criticized KotOR I explained in good length exactly how that would be an utter and complete disaster with a party of six.
Quote:Ah but if CoMI had better controls it would be an even better game.
Nope. Its controls were perfect for the game. The coin was an innovative way to present a traditional adventure interface and it allowed for a empty screen... like Grim, except for when you click to bring the coin up or open your inventory. It's so hard to choose between the LA adventures, but I would say that Curse is my favorite Monkey Island game... fantastic title. And no, a direct control scheme would NOT have improved it. It may not have made it worse, but it wouldn't have improved it. Like Grim Fandango and EFMI, it would have been, in my view, simply there. Not a factor that affected my view of the game beyond a 'hey that's cool you have no graphical interface at all' with Grim Fandango.
Quote:The Baldur's Gate games completely disinterest me, and why is that? Well first we have to look at why I play these games to begin with. It's certainly not for the stories which I could do much better with a book and it's not really for the combat which isn't all that. I like playing RPGs to become a part of a world, to inhabit a certain character and go on adventures. I cannot feel like I'm in that world if I'm seeing it from a bird's eye view, now can I? Then it's just like I'm a bird magically controlling a bunch of characters. If I'm not feeling like I'm in the game then there is no point to it. If I want to use my imagination to make the game not suck then why the fuck am I playing a game at all?? I could just run around the woods pretending the same damn stuff but with even more freedom and immersion. If the gameplay and/or story is good enough, however, then the perspective doesn't matter.
You do know that most of the console RPG genre is top-down as well, right? I know I've mentioned this before, but it's not like PC RPGs are the only ones that use a lot of top-down... console titles do too. That is, top-down or isometric. Isometric is by far the more common... BG is isometric, not topdown, of course.
As for the rest of this all I can really do is say that for me i feel completely differently about these games. I've loved Baldur's Gate since the first time I played it and still love the Infinity engine games. BGII and PT are in my top 10 games of all time list. Why? So many reasons... I love the graphics. The background map art is frequently stunning. I love how the gameplay is role-playing with a heavy dose of strategy. I love the combat. Easily the best combat system in any RPG out there. The stories are also great... far better than most videogames for the most part. If you're comparing a videogame story to a book you're highly praising the videogame... indeed, the highest praise I can think to give Planescape: Torment is that it's like playing a well written and unique fantasy novel. Baldur's Gate is my favorite RPG series of all time for sure. Well, as long as you leave out the stupid console Diablo clones...
There, actually, is more proof of my point that whether controls are direct or indirect (mouse click location) has very little impact on how immersive the game is. Diablo II is a far more immersive game than Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance... it's not close in any regard. It's all about game quality overall, not that one factor. It's a pretty minor factor.
Quote:Exactly, you cannot even comprehend the idea of proper controls. Which is why I'm trying to educate you, even though I know deep down inside (well... really not that deep down) that you will not or cannot try to understand me.
All you're educating me on is that we disagree. Not that you are more right. And you won't do that I suspect because... yes... this is a matter of OPINION! Unlike how you say it is NOT hard facts! (not so) sorry to have to break it to you, but it isn't a set and fast fact that isometric games are bad or that games with mouse-based control schemes are inherently less immersive... it's in a large part how you see it. But I doubt you'll admit that.
Quote:Honestly, I've never ACTUALLY "forgetten it was only a game", or LITERALLY "thought I WAS the character". I mean, those are just expressions and all, and I know no one actually feels that, but you know, thought I'd say that.
Me neither, which was a definite (if not directly stated I guess) point of mine.
Quote:Adventure games, the PC kind... Ah yes, there's an example of where a point and click interface is BETTER than a direct control scheme. Grim Fandango (and yes, even Monkey Island 4, for all it's failings), were fun games, but I had to fault the control scheme. Really, the whole direct control thing just didn't add anything to the game for me, and more often than not, it actually made things frustrating (alligning my character "just so" so it FINALLY looks at the thing I want for example, rather than moving my cursor to the object I want to manipulate and clicking on it). Strategy games are another where indirect control is FAR superior, in all senses, than any direct control. In fact, I've yet to see a single strategy game that HAS direct control of any sort.
Gamepads are extremely highly recommended for those two games... I imagine that they'd be not much fun at all if you had to use keyboard. Too many keys. But as I said, I thought it was okay. It isn't hugely better than a normal inventory but it was unique... remember, Grim Fandango was the first game with that now-ubiquous 'look at object you can interact with' thing. It worked well in that game's context... I didn't find it hugely frusterating. It did make GF a bit longer and more challenging, but it was just part of the game... but it's really tied to overall game quality more than anything else. The control scheme wasn't the problem with EFMI, but it just didn't work as well in that game... not sure why. As I said the mediocre quality of the game was certainly part of it. So while I didn't hate the controls in those two games, I didn't love them either... I have no problem with traditionally designed adventure games (fully mouse controlled), certainly.
Oh yeah, and no strategy game has a direct control scheme because it'd be horriffic. Ever played Lords of Magic? It has a mouse on but with some interface twists to make it centric on the heroes that are just cruel, IMO... namely, you can only build units in buildings when your hero is relatively near the building most of the time. It's a bit more complex than that, but it's just such an awful system that it's no wonder no other strategy game came close. Or how about the original version of Warcraft III with the close camera (third-person viewpoint) and stuff? They realized that strategy games work far better overhead.
(long paragraphs about Zelda)
Zelda. You are absolutely right, Zelda wouldn't be the same if you could click across the screen and watch Link go there. Because Zelda is not an RPG, it's an action-adventure-RPG. Action means action elements. As in it has substantial challenges that DO involve interacting with your environment in ways like jumping puzzles, etc. Very different kind of game and for that game direct movement definitely works best. But for a true RPG? I see little reason. Which is why so many of them on the PC don't have direct movement. Zelda really is not a reasonable comparison. As you say, it's a vastly different style of game...
Quote:(Incidentally, Fire Emblem doesn't let you directly control your characters at all, but hey, I still feel pretty immersed.)
OB1 will explain this away with his quote that strategy games are different somehow... that the overhead view is more like what your character would actually be seeing. It works to a point, but only so far... Now, with wargames he would be right. Wargames are after all an extention of a wargame played on a table with metal armies. Or of a real war represented in the general's tent with flags on a map. Strategy games are really an offshoot of wargames, but they are sufficiently changed that I don't know if it's still appropriate to say that the overhead viewpoint is actually what the commander would theoretically be seeing... I suspect not, for most strategy titles, while yes for wargames. A Advance Wars or Fire Emblem fall somewhere in the middle on this ground... Advance Wars a TBS/Wargame, and Fire Emblem a Fantasy TBS/Wargame. :)
Quote:However, I see many times when the indirect control DOES kinda cheapen things. For example, there are times when you can click on an area within your sight when you have no idea how to get there, and your character just automatically navigates the correct path. This however does not discredit the whole method, just the execution in this instance. If the pathing AI was set up so that it couldn't automatically path through areas you hadn't explored yet, or where no path has been discovered by you the player, this would be fixed, and we could all get on with our lives.
Note that in the games I am specifically discussing, such as Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Diablo, etc, you can't tell your people to go to an area you haven't explored yet. That is frequently an issue in strategy games, but RPGs usually do not allow such things by one method (only allowing movement to the area directly around you) or another (not allowing movement into the black mask). But not a system where you can move into a unrevealed area and have your people act like they know where they are going. Not in RPGs.
That strategy often works great in RTSes though... Starcraft in particular... :)
Quote:In that vein, a PC RPG, for example, does not need to control like Zelda to be good. Being able to directly control your character is helpful, helpful enough that just about all the ones I've played do allow that (standard wasd walking), but it doesn't affect gameplay or even immersion. I didn't feel like I was "cheating" or "being cheap" or "being led by the hand" in any fasion just because I told the character to walk to the door and open it by itself rather than actually directly navigating my character and pressing the action button. Such direct control is not where the gameplay lies. It would even work in Final Fantasy VI. Telling Terra to walk over there by herself woudln't hurt it in any way really, because there's no "live action" style gameplay in that game, with only a few somewhat fun diversions (following the light in the tunnel, but even that was a memory game, not a "keep up with Dante" game, so clicking wouldn't cheapen it in any way, unless of course you were allowed to use a follow command on the light thing ). Really, the gameplay lies in the choices you make, so the control scheme's main role is in making it as easy to realize your decisions as possible. I wouldn't want to have to suddenly hit X at just the right moment as the "fight" option swings back and forth past a "reticule" of some sort just to be able to attack in every battle, because that's not the sort of game this is! Save something like that for a small mini-game. Instead, just let me pick the attack command, and then from there I'll pick the various spells or stances or special abilities I want to use.
I would say that I think that console RPGs would be well advised to take a note from the PC titles and put in an indirect control scheme. I thought about that once this debate started and absolutely agree... it would make the games more fun and simpler and would have no negative side effects in terms of interactivity, immersion, or anything else. I certainly am arguing that the side effects in games where that is the only method are essentially negligable, so of course I'd extend it into other categories of games that work similarly... so I absolutely agree with this.
This part really sums it up, I think.
Quote:the gameplay lies in the choices you make
(and, as is implied, not in your character's direct actions).
It's not about Super Mario jumping or Zelda action. It's about strategic combat (and you could -- and probably should -- take that to mean that true RPGs and strategy games are closely related... they are, of course...), story, and making decisions.
OB1, it's not about "liking bad controls". It's about liking what works best for the game! I have no idea why you think that indirect control of characters is bad and harmful to games, but I do not agree beyond the minimal level I mentioned about Grim Fandango (as in I note 'hey it's kind of cool that there is no interface and I directly do everything' and then proceed with the adventure, quickly forgetting about the interface as I would with any game once I've used it for a while). I wonder if you'll ever accept that.
Save criticisms of games not having enough direct control for things that deserve it like the 3d Sonic adventures. :D
Yep, you nailed it, that's exactly what I implied. And yes, I agree, strategy games and RPGs do have something in common. On that note, I first got into turn based strategy because the first one I played tricked me into thinking it WAS an RPG (Final Fantasy Tactics). It wasn't a hard thing to "fake" though, because FFT is more of a strategy/RPG, but that's how I got sucked in there.
On my whole speil about clicking and the character autopathing, actually I was talking about like if you could see into a dungeon cell through the bars, thus making it "uncovered territory", and then clicking the move button behind those bars even though you had no idea there was this secret passageway hidden behind some tapestry hanging on a wall you could just walk through, and your character just runs STRAIGHT there and into the dungeon. If not for that, it might have been a hard puzzle to solve :D. But still, that's easy enough to fix. If the character's pathing AI tells it to go into uncharted territory, the game will refuse to let you just autowalk there, thus making it impossible for just such a situation to occur. That was just bad programming though, the actual point to move setup wasn't to blame. (Yes, I know that can be interpretted to mean something that makes me sound stupid like "What, the setup isn't to blame but the programming, which IS the setup, is? MORON!", but you KNOW what I meant.)
Ya know, in Fire Emblem, or in the first two Warcraft games, or Starcraft, or Advance Wars, yes, the overhead perspective is similar to what a tactician would see looking at a board and deciding on commands. However, what about Final Fantasy Tactics games, or Wacraft 3, where there is no "tactician" you could possibly be seeing this from? You are merely a disembodied entity there, and the strategies, as far as the story goes, just seem to be coming from the heroes... or something... which have no top-down perspective on things. You, the player, aren't an actual character in those games. Actually, come to think of it, Fire Emblem 7 (that's the number of the latest one, the one we have, right?) is the first to actually give the player an identity in the story.
I wonder if Blizzard even needs to make a warcraft IV? They could just release a exspansion that would rework the game out maybe get rid of the item annoyance factors. Starcraft II is gonna take years to finnish they could make a side warcraft III project to keep people busy before SCII comes.
SCII is next on the list its been way to long and still in demand.SC Ghost is just a slap in the face for PC gamers expecting the real deal RTS addictive crack we cannot stop playing even after 6 years.I hope blizzard doesnt go overboard with hero shit leave it for the campaigns , Stick with the basics I want to see a advance exspanded version of the old game with buttloads of units lots of options, The only diversion from that to me is like the Age of mythology idea of building this super weapon thing,The Terrans would build a Giant star destroyer the protoss would be some death star, The Zerg would be some giant monstrosity from hell with 3 heads Um.... you get the idea...
I could see a world of Diablo MMorpg in the future if WOW suceeds, Likely WOW will blow the pants off those half assed MMorpg attempts most certainly.
Quote:Yep, you nailed it, that's exactly what I implied. And yes, I agree, strategy games and RPGs do have something in common. On that note, I first got into turn based strategy because the first one I played tricked me into thinking it WAS an RPG (Final Fantasy Tactics). It wasn't a hard thing to "fake" though, because FFT is more of a strategy/RPG, but that's how I got sucked in there.
Strategy games and RPGs have a LOT in common. RPG elements like inventories and levelling up characters are extremely common, and actually pretty much mandatory, in fantasy strategy games (from Disciples, Heroes of Might & Magic, Master of Magic, etc, etc, to Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics to Warcraft III, it's the norm in a large number of fantasy-based strategy games... especially the TBSes where I can't think of many without it. Fantasy General I guess but that's a fantasy wargame, not strategy title...)
Autopathing... what game are you talking about? Diablo? That's pretty minor you know... and as you say not too hard to solve. In Baldur's Gate the only minor issue I can think of with view is what I said -- sometimes you can kind of see through walls. Not enough to tell people to move to the other side (to somewhere they shouldn't be able to know how to get to) normally... as I said it's much more a 'suspension of disbelief' issue than it is a issue about what you are talking about. Irritiating because of how it forces you to remember that this is a game and definitely hurts immersion... oh well, it's not a big thing. Doesn't take long to get immersed again. :)
Quote:Ya know, in Fire Emblem, or in the first two Warcraft games, or Starcraft, or Advance Wars, yes, the overhead perspective is similar to what a tactician would see looking at a board and deciding on commands. However, what about Final Fantasy Tactics games, or Wacraft 3, where there is no "tactician" you could possibly be seeing this from? You are merely a disembodied entity there, and the strategies, as far as the story goes, just seem to be coming from the heroes... or something... which have no top-down perspective on things. You, the player, aren't an actual character in those games. Actually, come to think of it, Fire Emblem 7 (that's the number of the latest one, the one we have, right?) is the first to actually give the player an identity in the story.
As I said, strategy games are an offshoot of wargames which come from an 19th century thing of (nobility) playing war (or depicting a war in progress) with lead figures and sculpted terrain... that became wargames in the mid 20th century I believe and strategy games spun off once computer games got going (note how early games we'd now call strategy games, like Empire, were at the time called 'Wargames'). So strategy games are based on the idea of you being the tactitican looking down from on high as well. The only thing is that as time passed strategy games started to move away from that... as you say, with things like Warcraft III where "you" are the people on the ground, not a general telling them what to do.
Fire Emblem the only game to have you in the story? Huh? Uh.. depends on what you mean. If you mean a specific name, perhaps. But I'd certainly say that in most RTSes "you" are in the story as a commander. Perhaps not in Warcraft III as you said, but it certainly is that way in Starcraft... 'you' are a commander in the story. Or at least that's certainly how I remember it!
So in short I'd say that even in the strategy genre the vast majority of titles are still centered around the idea of a person looking at a map and commanding troops like in wargames. It's not stated directly as such in many games, but it can be easily inferred I'd say... it just becomes a problem when you move titles more towards RPGs like Warcraft III because "you" don't really have an identity at all in that game... "you" don't exist actually. As you say, a disembodied spirit... :) But games like that are in the minority of the genre.
No no no, I said FE7 is the first in the Fire Emblem series itself to make you a character in the story.
Seems the WOW server building has been decimated by a tornado of all things. Tornados are like hurricanes, only on average 5X as powerful, but 5000 times smaller and thus much easier to avoid, unless you happen to be a stationary building (meaning it won't damage much, but whatever it does hit, if it's a strong tornado, will be levelled to the ground without remorse).
Quote:And when I first criticized KotOR I explained in good length exactly how that would be an utter and complete disaster with a party of six.
That's only because of the size of the environments.
Quote:Nope. Its controls were perfect for the game. The coin was an innovative way to present a traditional adventure interface and it allowed for a empty screen... like Grim, except for when you click to bring the coin up or open your inventory. It's so hard to choose between the LA adventures, but I would say that Curse is my favorite Monkey Island game... fantastic title. And no, a direct control scheme would NOT have improved it. It may not have made it worse, but it wouldn't have improved it. Like Grim Fandango and EFMI, it would have been, in my view, simply there. Not a factor that affected my view of the game beyond a 'hey that's cool you have no graphical interface at all' with Grim Fandango.
I've explained this in more detail a few paragraphs down.
Quote:You do know that most of the console RPG genre is top-down as well, right?
NO! *GASP!!!*
Quote:I know I've mentioned this before, but it's not like PC RPGs are the only ones that use a lot of top-down... console titles do too. That is, top-down or isometric. Isometric is by far the more common... BG is isometric, not topdown, of course.
I've been waiting for you to mention that. Took you long enough.
This is why I brought up that "unless the gameplay or story is really good" point. I'll play something like Chrono Trigger because the gameplay is pretty good and the story is very enjoyable to be a part of. I stay away from most console RPGs, frankly, but once in a while I'll play one is the gameplay and/or story make it worth it. In those cases a more immersive visual experience would be great and really add to the game, but it's not the main draw so I can ignore it.
Quote:As for the rest of this all I can really do is say that for me i feel completely differently about these games.
That's why they're called opinions, bubba.
Quote:I've loved Baldur's Gate since the first time I played it and still love the Infinity engine games. BGII and PT are in my top 10 games of all time list. Why? So many reasons... I love the graphics. The background map art is frequently stunning. I love how the gameplay is role-playing with a heavy dose of strategy. I love the combat. Easily the best combat system in any RPG out there. The stories are also great... far better than most videogames for the most part. If you're comparing a videogame story to a book you're highly praising the videogame... indeed, the highest praise I can think to give Planescape: Torment is that it's like playing a well written and unique fantasy novel. Baldur's Gate is my favorite RPG series of all time for sure. Well, as long as you leave out the stupid console Diablo clones...
The story is good if you enjoy the poor narrative execution. I'm not going to become engrossed in a story when it's told that way. At least, I haven't played a game that does that well enough.
Quote:There, actually, is more proof of my point that whether controls are direct or indirect (mouse click location) has very little impact on how immersive the game is. Diablo II is a far more immersive game than Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance... it's not close in any regard. It's all about game quality overall, not that one factor. It's a pretty minor factor.
All that proves is what I've been saying all along: you don't care too much about immersive controls (in most cases). If it gets the job done that is good enough for you. For me controls have to be excellent and go a long way in immersing you into a game.
Quote:All you're educating me on is that we disagree. Not that you are more right. And you won't do that I suspect because... yes... this is a matter of OPINION! Unlike how you say it is NOT hard facts! (not so) sorry to have to break it to you, but it isn't a set and fast fact that isometric games are bad or that games with mouse-based control schemes are inherently less immersive... it's in a large part how you see it. But I doubt you'll admit that.
Just about
everything comes down to a matter of opinion if you really want to be that way. But certain things are more objective than others, like bad controls. Some people may
prefer what others consider to be bad controls, but there are ways of defining good and bad controls. But to tell you the truth, it would make me dozens of long paragraphs to
really get into it and explain it to you, and frankly I don't think you're worth the effort. No offence, most people aren't. But you especially since you're so damned stubborn. :)
Quote:Me neither, which was a definite (if not directly stated I guess) point of mine.
Ah, and that goes even further to prove my point! It's funny how perspectives work because on this we are in total agreement, yet see very differently on what it means. Allow me to educate you.
With you (and DJ, it seems), controls are just a way to reach a goal, to have some sort of interaction with video games. They are just games, after all, and as long as you are able to accomplish that goal with minimum frustration, it really doesn't matter a whole lot
how you do it. For me controls make the game and are what bring you into the experience, and I want as much direct control over my characters or crafts as I can get. If I could control each individual limb, each individual muscle intuitively I would. You don't seem to be able to understand this point of mine, even though you actually
do with a select few genres. For you it's space combat games. You do admit that the flight stick goes a long way in helping you "get into" the game and making you feel that much closer to a real pilot. That, at least, you can see. And before you start thinking how
wrong you think I am, just stop for a moment and seriously think about what I said, forgetting that it's "God forbid he's right" OB1 telling you this.
Quote:OB1, it's not about "liking bad controls". It's about liking what works best for the game! I have no idea why you think that indirect control of characters is bad and harmful to games, but I do not agree beyond the minimal level I mentioned about Grim Fandango (as in I note 'hey it's kind of cool that there is no interface and I directly do everything' and then proceed with the adventure, quickly forgetting about the interface as I would with any game once I've used it for a while). I wonder if you'll ever accept that.
Quote:OB1 will explain this away with his quote that strategy games are different somehow... that the overhead view is more like what your character would actually be seeing. It works to a point, but only so far... Now, with wargames he would be right. Wargames are after all an extention of a wargame played on a table with metal armies. Or of a real war represented in the general's tent with flags on a map. Strategy games are really an offshoot of wargames, but they are sufficiently changed that I don't know if it's still appropriate to say that the overhead viewpoint is actually what the commander would theoretically be seeing... I suspect not, for most strategy titles, while yes for wargames. A Advance Wars or Fire Emblem fall somewhere in the middle on this ground... Advance Wars a TBS/Wargame, and Fire Emblem a Fantasy TBS/Wargame.
I already explained this, but I'll oblige once again.
In Fire Emblem and Advance Wars you are not actually playing the role of each unit. The role you are playing is actually yourself. So for instance in a game like Zelda you are playing the role of Link, and when you interact with the game world you are interacting
through Link. In strategy games or stuff like The Sims, the role you are inhabiting is in fact your
own self, and you are controlling your units through nobody else. You could, I suppose, have a game like Fire Emblem where you do control a character that then controls the units, but that would be unnecessary. Do you understand that? Likewise in Monkey Island when you're using the mouse to click everywhere instead of directly controlling the character, the role you are inhabiting is no longer Guybrush but rather yourself, and Guybrush ceases to be "you" and just another unit on screen to manipulate.
Does that make sense to you?
Quote:No no no, I said FE7 is the first in the Fire Emblem series itself to make you a character in the story.
Ah. Then I wouldn't know. :)
Quote:That's only because of the size of the environments.
Wha... huh? What does this have to do with party size? ... oh, do you mean the 'they get lost' aspect? When you go to leave an area and someone got stuck on a corner a few minuites back? That is a pain, but something that can't be avoided no matter how big your environements... and for some towns having everything be big open areas just wouldn't make sense, you know, so that isn't a real solution.
But anyway that's not the biggest reason. It's one, but not the biggest. Bigger ones include: 1) the totally broken movement system -- with six you MUST have some kind of ability to lay indirect movement orders while paused! Just make it an option you can add to the queue! So easy and it'd be such a MASSIVE help! -- 2) the fact that in KotOR you have to constantly manage everyone (that is, that you can't just tell Warrior #1 to Power Attack enemies until you tell him to stop -- you must tell Warrior #1 to power attack for the next four rounds, upon which time he will go under the control of the AI. Good for when you want to control just the main character, VERY BAD if you want to control the whole party. It adds a huge amount of micro-management as you have to constantly switch around and add queue items where in BG you'd just be managing potions and spellcasters. It's an irritating hassle that I wish they had dealt with better (read: on/off switches for actions instead of 'single action' queue entries).
Those listed things are managable in a three-party system. It can be a bit annoying at times, certainly, but it works decently with the small party. But with a party of six... it'd be disaster. Especially if it was a D&D game where characters have more options and skills to manage and take up a lot of your time even if you aren't ordering every single stupid attack order. Sure, queueing orders allows cool stuff like 'attack enemy one twice then enemy two twice' while in BG you'd have to retarget the person after attacking enemy one twice, and that can be a nice feature for sure, but the system also introduces some problems, as I explained. And those problems would get exponentially more evident in a party twice as large. Same with movement.
So no, it's not just about environments and pathfinding. It's about design decisions in the KotOR system that work decently for three but would never work for six.
Quote:NO! *GASP!!!*
But you only talk about PC RPGs in relation to 'topdown = bad'...
Quote:I've been waiting for you to mention that. Took you long enough.
This is why I brought up that "unless the gameplay or story is really good" point. I'll play something like Chrono Trigger because the gameplay is pretty good and the story is very enjoyable to be a part of. I stay away from most console RPGs, frankly, but once in a while I'll play one is the gameplay and/or story make it worth it. In those cases a more immersive visual experience would be great and really add to the game, but it's not the main draw so I can ignore it.
Story. You use STORY as your excuse. You know what? I'd believe you if you didn't also say that Fallout and Baldur's Gate had bad stories... sure BG's wasn't the best and moved slowly, but what was there was pretty good. And as for Fallout, it should be obvious to anyone who played that game that it has a fantastic story. Now the 'story' arguement would work on old, story-thin PC 'RPGs' like a those classic dungeon crawls (think older Wizardry games), but the modern PC RPG? Not on your life! Now, there is a significant differnce from console RPGs of course. PC RPGs usually have character creation. That means that your character is your own, but it also necessitates a different kind of storytelling with less of an individual focus... obviously you dislike that kind of storytelling, but trying to deny that it is one and it is one that is unquestionably equal (if different) from console games' styles of storytelling is just foolish.
Quote:That's why they're called opinions, bubba.
How I wish that you'd act like that is what they were when they are other people's...
Quote:The story is good if you enjoy the poor narrative execution. I'm not going to become engrossed in a story when it's told that way. At least, I haven't played a game that does that well enough.
What, exactly, do you mean? All I can think of in games like BG (though BGII and Torment blow it away on everything story related) and Fallout is that the story isn't given to you like it is in console games and you have to make an effort to get it...
Come to think of it, you seem to contradict yourself here. On the one hand you say how much you love non-linear games, but on the other you have attacked PC RPGs for making their stories require more user effort, if my memory is correct... maybe that's a bit off, but I seem to remember saying that it's more interactive (and as we all agree games are an interactive medium and ideally should capitalize on that) to make it so that it's not a given that you know everything. But I don't want to start up that debate again, so instead I'll just ask what you mean... is it about that or something else, like the pacing of how they lay out the story in that game (BG)?
On that subject, Baldur's Gate is one thing. It was their first RPG, and you can tell in many ways. It's got slowdown in that it has a huge number of big empty areas that serve very little purpose... lots of forests with one thing in them at best that you have to explore. That isn't the best game design, admittedly. And in BGII they clamped down on that hard. In BGII there are no irrelevant or mostly empty zones, with little to do. The cities are improved too, with fewer random homes that serve no purpose other than to be robbed and more that are connected to one quest or another. Et cetera. ... or do you mean something else?
Quote:All that proves is what I've been saying all along: you don't care too much about immersive controls (in most cases). If it gets the job done that is good enough for you. For me controls have to be excellent and go a long way in immersing you into a game.
Since when have you been saying that? That's what I said, but you said that your way was the only sane way!
Quote:Just about everything comes down to a matter of opinion if you really want to be that way. But certain things are more objective than others, like bad controls. Some people may prefer what others consider to be bad controls, but there are ways of defining good and bad controls. But to tell you the truth, it would make me dozens of long paragraphs to really get into it and explain it to you, and frankly I don't think you're worth the effort. No offence, most people aren't. But you especially since you're so damned stubborn.
And this is exactly what I mean. "You can believe that if you want but it's stupid" is not exactly the best way to say that you respect other people's opinions... quite the opposite, obviously.
There are a few cases where bad controls are just that. Generally in badly done games where you have problems like massive slowdown or long response times. Or overly complex interfaces -- though this is more a 'entry curve' issue than a true badness issue, they can certainly seem bad until you get used to them (and by that I mean like hex-based wargames with their extremely nonintuitive layouts full of buttons... that genre has such a high entry curve... or flight sims, with every key on the keyboard doing something...).
But in the terms of this arguement, direct/indirect? There is no issue of 'bad controls' on such a general scale. Only on a game-specific level.
Quote:Ah, and that goes even further to prove my point! It's funny how perspectives work because on this we are in total agreement, yet see very differently on what it means. Allow me to educate you.
With you (and DJ, it seems), controls are just a way to reach a goal, to have some sort of interaction with video games. They are just games, after all, and as long as you are able to accomplish that goal with minimum frustration, it really doesn't matter a whole lot how you do it. For me controls make the game and are what bring you into the experience, and I want as much direct control over my characters or crafts as I can get. If I could control each individual limb, each individual muscle intuitively I would. You don't seem to be able to understand this point of mine, even though you actually do with a select few genres. For you it's space combat games. You do admit that the flight stick goes a long way in helping you "get into" the game and making you feel that much closer to a real pilot. That, at least, you can see. And before you start thinking how wrong you think I am, just stop for a moment and seriously think about what I said, forgetting that it's "God forbid he's right" OB1 telling you this.
Hmm... with flight sims that is part of it, I'd admit, but it's also about how the mouse and keyboard are utterly inadaquate for representing a flight system. I remember that one time just for fun I tried to use the mouse in TIE Fighter... oh the pain...
But yes, in a Freelancer because of the controls it did feel a bit less immersive. I'm used to that genre being one way and that game is totally different... it felt less like a flight game and more like a third-person action game -- a Descent title in space, not a space shooter (or sim). Though other factors also definitely work into this to a huge degree. In the case of Freelancer also vital is the degree to which they have simplified things -- it also doesn't feel like a true space sim because it doesn't have much of the depth of one of those games!
And as I said I thought Grim Fandango's scheme was unique and maybe a little bit more immersive (though I'd have probably disagreed if I'd had to use a keyboard for that thing...). But as I said, it just isn't a particularly big factor for me. I don't feel much more that I am the character in BGDA or Gauntlet because of direct control than the (less like) the character in Diablo because of indirect...
And I don't feel much more like my KotOR character than my BG character because of direct movement. The differences lie in other things -- in the slight advantage KotOR being in 3D gives it, in the advantage BG's better artwork gives it, or in the realms of story, which I'd say is possibly the most important aspect of it all as far as immersion (and another one where BG (oh, and by this I mean BGII. I haven't played BGI in years, and honestly don't remember it too well beyond the basics... and besides, I only got halfway through the thing! When I say 'BG' I'm mostly referring to BGII, which I played this year (and am still working on).) wins)... but that is all stuff I have covered before.
Quote:In Fire Emblem and Advance Wars you are not actually playing the role of each unit. The role you are playing is actually yourself. So for instance in a game like Zelda you are playing the role of Link, and when you interact with the game world you are interacting through Link. In strategy games or stuff like The Sims, the role you are inhabiting is in fact your own self, and you are controlling your units through nobody else. You could, I suppose, have a game like Fire Emblem where you do control a character that then controls the units, but that would be unnecessary. Do you understand that? Likewise in Monkey Island when you're using the mouse to click everywhere instead of directly controlling the character, the role you are inhabiting is no longer Guybrush but rather yourself, and Guybrush ceases to be "you" and just another unit on screen to manipulate.
... and nor are you playing the role of each character in any party-based RPG... :)
But that last part is where we disagree. In the context of how it is a game 'you' are Guybrush and the fact that you click on the screen to command him doesn't change that much... what does is presentation. That is, the more cinematic (and set) they make the chararacter the less a 'you' they are and the more like a movie character they are... while the more you have some kind of say (or the character is generic and not well defined in these categories -- like Quest for Glory, where instead of your character saying things you choose general topics to discuss or things to tell them and the other person responds like you asked a question.. it's probably a legacy of text-entry of questions, yeah, but it also has the result of making the character less defined so that it can become more a 'You'. Having multiple paths (though the choice of characater between fighter, mage, and theif) also goes towards that goal too of course... :)) the more it feels like you can identify with them. Well, not exactly... with a cinematic style you might as well. But with a more open one more people will identify with them while with a more set one some will and some won't.
But anyway, we disagree.
Quote:Wha... huh? What does this have to do with party size? ... oh, do you mean the 'they get lost' aspect? When you go to leave an area and someone got stuck on a corner a few minuites back? That is a pain, but something that can't be avoided no matter how big your environements... and for some towns having everything be big open areas just wouldn't make sense, you know, so that isn't a real solution.
But anyway that's not the biggest reason. It's one, but not the biggest. Bigger ones include: 1) the totally broken movement system -- with six you MUST have some kind of ability to lay indirect movement orders while paused! Just make it an option you can add to the queue! So easy and it'd be such a MASSIVE help! -- 2) the fact that in KotOR you have to constantly manage everyone (that is, that you can't just tell Warrior #1 to Power Attack enemies until you tell him to stop -- you must tell Warrior #1 to power attack for the next four rounds, upon which time he will go under the control of the AI. Good for when you want to control just the main character, VERY BAD if you want to control the whole party. It adds a huge amount of micro-management as you have to constantly switch around and add queue items where in BG you'd just be managing potions and spellcasters. It's an irritating hassle that I wish they had dealt with better (read: on/off switches for actions instead of 'single action' queue entries).
Those listed things are managable in a three-party system. It can be a bit annoying at times, certainly, but it works decently with the small party. But with a party of six... it'd be disaster. Especially if it was a D&D game where characters have more options and skills to manage and take up a lot of your time even if you aren't ordering every single stupid attack order. Sure, queueing orders allows cool stuff like 'attack enemy one twice then enemy two twice' while in BG you'd have to retarget the person after attacking enemy one twice, and that can be a nice feature for sure, but the system also introduces some problems, as I explained. And those problems would get exponentially more evident in a party twice as large. Same with movement.
So no, it's not just about environments and pathfinding. It's about design decisions in the KotOR system that work decently for three but would never work for six.
No I meant that the environments are simply too small for six people on your side. And then you'd have to have twice the number of baddies. And I never had problems with people being left behind.
Quote:But you only talk about PC RPGs in relation to 'topdown = bad'...
I explained why that is.
Quote:Story. You use STORY as your excuse. You know what? I'd believe you if you didn't also say that Fallout and Baldur's Gate had bad stories... sure BG's wasn't the best and moved slowly, but what was there was pretty good. And as for Fallout, it should be obvious to anyone who played that game that it has a fantastic story. Now the 'story' arguement would work on old, story-thin PC 'RPGs' like a those classic dungeon crawls (think older Wizardry games), but the modern PC RPG? Not on your life! Now, there is a significant differnce from console RPGs of course. PC RPGs usually have character creation. That means that your character is your own, but it also necessitates a different kind of storytelling with less of an individual focus... obviously you dislike that kind of storytelling, but trying to deny that it is one and it is one that is unquestionably equal (if different) from console games' styles of storytelling is just foolish.
I never played enough of Fallout to see how it's story was, but I do not like the way stories are told in PC RPGs. It's all through endless talking with NPCs, reading scrolls, blahbityblah. That's not good storytelling, even if there is a great story scattered around.
Quote:How I wish that you'd act like that is what they were when they are other people's...
[quote]
That sentence was difficult to understand.
[quote]What, exactly, do you mean? All I can think of in games like BG (though BGII and Torment blow it away on everything story related) and Fallout is that the story isn't given to you like it is in console games and you have to make an effort to get it...
Come to think of it, you seem to contradict yourself here. On the one hand you say how much you love non-linear games, but on the other you have attacked PC RPGs for making their stories require more user effort, if my memory is correct... maybe that's a bit off, but I seem to remember saying that it's more interactive (and as we all agree games are an interactive medium and ideally should capitalize on that) to make it so that it's not a given that you know everything. But I don't want to start up that debate again, so instead I'll just ask what you mean... is it about that or something else, like the pacing of how they lay out the story in that game (BG)?
On that subject, Baldur's Gate is one thing. It was their first RPG, and you can tell in many ways. It's got slowdown in that it has a huge number of big empty areas that serve very little purpose... lots of forests with one thing in them at best that you have to explore. That isn't the best game design, admittedly. And in BGII they clamped down on that hard. In BGII there are no irrelevant or mostly empty zones, with little to do. The cities are improved too, with fewer random homes that serve no purpose other than to be robbed and more that are connected to one quest or another. Et cetera. ... or do you mean something else?
If you pay attention to what I've said then you'll see that I am not contradicting myself. Linear games are best-suited for stories (right now), and non-linear games are not. I prefer non-linear RPGs because of their open-ended gameplay and can forgive the fact that the story isn't told well. You can still tell a story in a non-linear game but developers haven't figured out a method of doing it well.
Quote:Since when have you been saying that? That's what I said, but you said that your way was the only sane way!
"sane"? No that's not what I meant. Read the last paragraph below.
Quote:And this is exactly what I mean. "You can believe that if you want but it's stupid" is not exactly the best way to say that you respect other people's opinions... quite the opposite, obviously.
Haha, perhaps you are correct. I could be more tactful.
Quote:There are a few cases where bad controls are just that. Generally in badly done games where you have problems like massive slowdown or long response times. Or overly complex interfaces -- though this is more a 'entry curve' issue than a true badness issue, they can certainly seem bad until you get used to them (and by that I mean like hex-based wargames with their extremely nonintuitive layouts full of buttons... that genre has such a high entry curve... or flight sims, with every key on the keyboard doing something...).
But in the terms of this arguement, direct/indirect? There is no issue of 'bad controls' on such a general scale. Only on a game-specific level.
Yes, I'm fully aware of that.
Quote:Hmm... with flight sims that is part of it, I'd admit, but it's also about how the mouse and keyboard are utterly inadaquate for representing a flight system. I remember that one time just for fun I tried to use the mouse in TIE Fighter... oh the pain...
But yes, in a Freelancer because of the controls it did feel a bit less immersive. I'm used to that genre being one way and that game is totally different... it felt less like a flight game and more like a third-person action game -- a Descent title in space, not a space shooter (or sim). Though other factors also definitely work into this to a huge degree. In the case of Freelancer also vital is the degree to which they have simplified things -- it also doesn't feel like a true space sim because it doesn't have much of the depth of one of those games!
And as I said I thought Grim Fandango's scheme was unique and maybe a little bit more immersive (though I'd have probably disagreed if I'd had to use a keyboard for that thing...). But as I said, it just isn't a particularly big factor for me. I don't feel much more that I am the character in BGDA or Gauntlet because of direct control than the (less like) the character in Diablo because of indirect...
And I don't feel much more like my KotOR character than my BG character because of direct movement. The differences lie in other things -- in the slight advantage KotOR being in 3D gives it, in the advantage BG's better artwork gives it, or in the realms of story, which I'd say is possibly the most important aspect of it all as far as immersion (and another one where BG (oh, and by this I mean BGII. I haven't played BGI in years, and honestly don't remember it too well beyond the basics... and besides, I only got halfway through the thing! When I say 'BG' I'm mostly referring to BGII, which I played this year (and am still working on).) wins)... but that is all stuff I have covered before.
Now you're contradicting yourself! The controls in Freelancer are great and do their job very well and very few people complained about them, yet you despise them because they are not immersive and claim that they suck. Ever consider the thought that since others found the controls good then perhaps it's a just a problem with
you? Asking yourself that will bring you closer to understanding the points that I am trying to get across to you, even if you think that I'm contradicting myself (I'm not).
Quote:... and nor are you playing the role of each character in any party-based RPG...
Of course you are. In FF you're always controlling just one person at a time.
Quote:But that last part is where we disagree. In the context of how it is a game 'you' are Guybrush and the fact that you click on the screen to command him doesn't change that much... what does is presentation. That is, the more cinematic (and set) they make the chararacter the less a 'you' they are and the more like a movie character they are... while the more you have some kind of say (or the character is generic and not well defined in these categories -- like Quest for Glory, where instead of your character saying things you choose general topics to discuss or things to tell them and the other person responds like you asked a question.. it's probably a legacy of text-entry of questions, yeah, but it also has the result of making the character less defined so that it can become more a 'You'. Having multiple paths (though the choice of characater between fighter, mage, and theif) also goes towards that goal too of course... ) the more it feels like you can identify with them. Well, not exactly... with a cinematic style you might as well. But with a more open one more people will identify with them while with a more set one some will and some won't.
But anyway, we disagree.
I don't think you really understand my opinion on this. I'm not saying that point-and-click controls are always bad, I'm saying that they work for certain types of games and shouldn't be used in certain cases. In something like Monkey Island where you don't have direct control over the character, it
could be good if the developers really ran with it. Instead of using that control style to its fullest potential they made it sort of an odd, confused mix of direct and indirect controls. So many PC games are like that. Either let the player control Guybrush directly or make it apparent that you are not fully controlling him but rather
guiding him. The game already has some of those ideas, what with the interaction between yourself and the character (which further proves my point about you not controlling Guybrush directly). They could have made the game even more interesting if there was a greater emphasis on that player-Guybrush interaction, or if you just plain became him directly. Going all the way in either direction would have resulted in a better game. I still love MI though.
ABF, after rereading a few things, I think you have the impression that I played Grim and MI4 with the keyboard. I used a Sidewinder, and it worked well enough, but as I said I just didn't like controlling it that way. I believe I've mentioned I have a Sidewinder controller before.
Anyway, what's all this about? The only thing I noticed above is this.
Quote:I'll play something like Chrono Trigger because the gameplay is pretty good and the story is very enjoyable to be a part of.
Quote:For me controls make the game and are what bring you into the experience, and I want as much direct control over my characters or crafts as I can get. If I could control each individual limb, each individual muscle intuitively I would.
Gee wiz, DJ is confused about a complicated discussion we're having when she can't see my posts.
Who woulda figured?
Quote:ABF, after rereading a few things, I think you have the impression that I played Grim and MI4 with the keyboard. I used a Sidewinder, and it worked well enough, but as I said I just didn't like controlling it that way. I believe I've mentioned I have a Sidewinder controller before.
No, I said that those games would be not nearly as fun with a keyboard, not that you played them with one.
Quote:No I meant that the environments are simply too small for six people on your side. And then you'd have to have twice the number of baddies. And I never had problems with people being left behind.
It mostly happens in towns when you're running around bending paths and stuff. And unlike a isometric game you can't tell that they have gotten lost.
Hmm, size-wise... perhaps. But that is a solvable problem. Obviously if it was six-person parties some areas would be larger to accomodate them (I mean like buildings; the outdoor areas are mostly okay). Not a major issue here.
Quote:I never played enough of Fallout to see how it's story was, but I do not like the way stories are told in PC RPGs. It's all through endless talking with NPCs, reading scrolls, blahbityblah. That's not good storytelling, even if there is a great story scattered around.
Quote:If you pay attention to what I've said then you'll see that I am not contradicting myself. Linear games are best-suited for stories (right now), and non-linear games are not. I prefer non-linear RPGs because of their open-ended gameplay and can forgive the fact that the story isn't told well. You can still tell a story in a non-linear game but developers haven't figured out a method of doing it well.
How does this not contradict your position? I mean, on the one hand non-linearity is good in game design, but on the other hand non-linear elements in storytelling is bad? That just doesn't make much sense... I know we discussed that with Metroid Prime, but BG or Fallout are no Metroid Primes. This isn't a totally disconnected story like that! The games just make you work for your story. I like it better that way, overall. It's more realistic to make how you act and what kind of person you are affect how much you learn! And I mean this in terms of both concious gameplay decisions (in how you react to people in conversations -- do you ask everything you can, end it as soon as possible, aim for a fight with people who will, etc... -- and in terms of how your character stats should affect what people say to you (and they most definitely should. This is one of KotOR's best achievements.). Linear stories are fine, but it makes it more interesting when the player has input on the story in some fashion. And I mean either input in changing the ending or input in choosing if you want to go after the story or not... but typically you get more rewarded in these games for going after the story because you will get more quests, more experience, etc. for doing that than you will for ignoring people. It's your choice, but on that front I'd say that there is a clear better path... it's the actual choices you make in those discussions (other than 'you are stupid and I'm leaving that is...) that has no clear answer. :)
Oh yeah, and Fallout is as linear or non-linear as you want it to be. Like Freelancer with a time limit really. You can stay on the story or you can ignore it... you'll have to do some of it (or at least, if you know what you're doing, the aspects that will remove the time limit), unfortunately, but it's a big time limit and most people shouldn't have problems with running out of time or something. But it can be very non-linear (to the point of ignoring the story) if you wish... and even within that story there are multiple paths (based on how good or evil you want to act). Fallout 2 has no time limit and is even more non-linear. But I haven't played that one so I can't really say much else.
Oh, and of course talking with NPCs is how most of the story develops! How else could it work in games as dense and full of stuff as these? And I find it very rarely boring. This aspect of these games is a lot like an adventure game in many ways... in a good way. :)
Quote:Haha, perhaps you are correct. I could be more tactful.
Normally when someone mentions this you say 'it's how I am and it's not a problem to insult people' or something along those lines... or at least you used to.
Quote:Yes, I'm fully aware of that.
Um, but in this thread haven't you been saying that indirect controls are bad controls? ... either you're contradicting yourself of you haven't thought this through. :)
Quote:Now you're contradicting yourself! The controls in Freelancer are great and do their job very well and very few people complained about them, yet you despise them because they are not immersive and claim that they suck. Ever consider the thought that since others found the controls good then perhaps it's a just a problem with you? Asking yourself that will bring you closer to understanding the points that I am trying to get across to you, even if you think that I'm contradicting myself (I'm not).
'Despise' them? I don't think I said that. I said that I definitely prefer normal controls for games like this and that I think they work better, but I wouldn't say despise... that would mean that I hated the game and I did enjoy the demo. It just didn't feel much like a space sim as I know them. And for someone who likes that genre, that's not such a good thing. (and as I said, the simplicity factor is a HUGE part of that!)
If you hate complex control schemes and game systems (well, combat flight systems; Freelancer obviously has a complex economic and open-ended game model) then Freelancer would be great. But if you like having to manage the details of your space fighter, then it's not. I like that aspect of space sims (though not to the extent where I enjoy land-based flight sims... :)).
When you frame it in terms of space sims I can kind of see your point... but then again I said from the start that it had some impact. Just not much of one. But for me I guess you're right that for that genre it's more than that... but as I said a big part of that is simply because the genre works so much better with a joystick-based control system. Part of it is immersion, but probably the greater part gameplay realities...
But anyway, there is also another aspect here. This has a specialized control system -- a joystick. That is different, I'd say, than the difference between clicking with a mouse and holding buttons on a mouse -- it's a totally different system. Like racing wheels for driving sims, they're both for immersion and improved control...
But I will definitely say that in the context of an isometric or third-person title the difference isn't big immersion-wise. And which way that difference swings, as I said, depends on the game... and in the case of PC games that swing is most often to the side of indirect control by virtue of its significantly greater control opertunities. For something like an RPG, direct controls are limiting... DJ had a really great point when she said that the point of the game isn't about the walking, it's what you do at points of interst, as compared to a Zelda or Mario where the walking is a big part of the point. I wouldn't want to see Zelda have indirect controls for combat either, or see Mario auto-jump over pits... but different kinds of games are different. And I do not see anywhere near as big an importance in physically moving your character in these games as you do.
Quote:Gee wiz, DJ is confused about a complicated discussion we're having when she can't see my posts. Who woulda figured?
I am quoting just about everything you say... but yes, it would be harder to follow that way for sure.
Quote:It mostly happens in towns when you're running around bending paths and stuff. And unlike a isometric game you can't tell that they have gotten lost.
Hmm, size-wise... perhaps. But that is a solvable problem. Obviously if it was six-person parties some areas would be larger to accomodate them (I mean like buildings; the outdoor areas are mostly okay). Not a major issue here.
The engine can't handle large environments. That's not solvable unless they get a different engine.
Quote:How does this not contradict your position? I mean, on the one hand non-linearity is good in game design, but on the other hand non-linear elements in storytelling is bad? That just doesn't make much sense... I know we discussed that with Metroid Prime, but BG or Fallout are no Metroid Primes. This isn't a totally disconnected story like that! The games just make you work for your story. I like it better that way, overall. It's more realistic to make how you act and what kind of person you are affect how much you learn! And I mean this in terms of both concious gameplay decisions (in how you react to people in conversations -- do you ask everything you can, end it as soon as possible, aim for a fight with people who will, etc... -- and in terms of how your character stats should affect what people say to you (and they most definitely should. This is one of KotOR's best achievements.). Linear stories are fine, but it makes it more interesting when the player has input on the story in some fashion. And I mean either input in changing the ending or input in choosing if you want to go after the story or not... but typically you get more rewarded in these games for going after the story because you will get more quests, more experience, etc. for doing that than you will for ignoring people. It's your choice, but on that front I'd say that there is a clear better path... it's the actual choices you make in those discussions (other than 'you are stupid and I'm leaving that is...) that has no clear answer.
Oh yeah, and Fallout is as linear or non-linear as you want it to be. Like Freelancer with a time limit really. You can stay on the story or you can ignore it... you'll have to do some of it (or at least, if you know what you're doing, the aspects that will remove the time limit), unfortunately, but it's a big time limit and most people shouldn't have problems with running out of time or something. But it can be very non-linear (to the point of ignoring the story) if you wish... and even within that story there are multiple paths (based on how good or evil you want to act). Fallout 2 has no time limit and is even more non-linear. But I haven't played that one so I can't really say much else.
Oh, and of course talking with NPCs is how most of the story develops! How else could it work in games as dense and full of stuff as these? And I find it very rarely boring. This aspect of these games is a lot like an adventure game in many ways... in a good way.
*sigh*
I play non-linear RPGs for the gameplay, and linear RPGs for the (not as good) gameplay and involving plot.
Quote:Normally when someone mentions this you say 'it's how I am and it's not a problem to insult people' or something along those lines... or at least you used to.
No, I would just say that you do the same and are a jerk. :)
Quote:Um, but in this thread haven't you been saying that indirect controls are bad controls? ... either you're contradicting yourself of you haven't thought this through.
I already addressed this. Why'd you ignore my post?
Quote:'Despise' them? I don't think I said that. I said that I definitely prefer normal controls for games like this and that I think they work better, but I wouldn't say despise... that would mean that I hated the game and I did enjoy the demo. It just didn't feel much like a space sim as I know them. And for someone who likes that genre, that's not such a good thing. (and as I said, the simplicity factor is a HUGE part of that!)
If you hate complex control schemes and game systems (well, combat flight systems; Freelancer obviously has a complex economic and open-ended game model) then Freelancer would be great. But if you like having to manage the details of your space fighter, then it's not. I like that aspect of space sims (though not to the extent where I enjoy land-based flight sims... ).
When you frame it in terms of space sims I can kind of see your point... but then again I said from the start that it had some impact. Just not much of one. But for me I guess you're right that for that genre it's more than that... but as I said a big part of that is simply because the genre works so much better with a joystick-based control system. Part of it is immersion, but probably the greater part gameplay realities...
But anyway, there is also another aspect here. This has a specialized control system -- a joystick. That is different, I'd say, than the difference between clicking with a mouse and holding buttons on a mouse -- it's a totally different system. Like racing wheels for driving sims, they're both for immersion and improved control...
But I will definitely say that in the context of an isometric or third-person title the difference isn't big immersion-wise. And which way that difference swings, as I said, depends on the game... and in the case of PC games that swing is most often to the side of indirect control by virtue of its significantly greater control opertunities. For something like an RPG, direct controls are limiting... DJ had a really great point when she said that the point of the game isn't about the walking, it's what you do at points of interst, as compared to a Zelda or Mario where the walking is a big part of the point. I wouldn't want to see Zelda have indirect controls for combat either, or see Mario auto-jump over pits... but different kinds of games are different. And I do not see anywhere near as big an importance in physically moving your character in these games as you do.
Did you just completely ignore the last paragraph in my post above this one? It addresses most of your points here.
Quote:I am quoting just about everything you say... but yes, it would be harder to follow that way for sure.
You missed the one paragraph in my previous post that addressed most of yours and DJ's points!
Okay let me put it this way. A 2D overhead space shooter (ala Raptor or Ikaraga (or however that's spelled) has limited controls. You can go forward, backward, left, right, and fire your weapons. It's simplistic, but there it is. A 3D shooter, ala Panzar Dragoon (sans Saga), or Star Fox (sans Adventures, except some of it) has much more control, allowing you to sorta go where you may. A 3D shooter with free movement (the previous are on-rails games) allows you to actually leave the path and fly around where you want, within the borders, ala Fury 3 or Wing Commander.
What was the point of me explaining stuff you already knew? Simple, I did that to prove a POINT of all things! You see, I wouldn't normally explain all that for no reason, I rather did it for A reason, which is to say-
Everyone in the universe, including Ned: GET ON WITH IT!
DJ: ....Sorry...
Anyway, the thing about it is, the fun of an on-rails shooter, that is, what makes it fun despite it not having all the freedom of "all-range mode" through the whole game, is, in it's ENTIRETY, the limitation of your controls. For that matter, there are times when I would RATHER play a 2D shooter than a 3D. It's not that they are better, per-say, but it's a different play experience. So, I'll play Raptor because it's a very fun game in it's own right, even if it doesn't let me move up and down. In fact, if it did, it could very well ruin the game.
Going on, Metroid Prime compaired to the 2D Metroid games. I wouldn't say 3D is some inherantly better format. Prime is a great game, one of my fave in the series, but to rule out 2D completely just because you can't move Samus around in 3 dimentions, limiting your controls, would be foolish.
Now, I went through all THAT to also prove a point. Meaning, there was a goal in saying that. It was also not to talk about 3D vs 2D, because ABF, I know fully well you love 2D. Rather it was to-
Everyone, except Ned, who just exploded: GET ON WITH IT or I'll cast flare on you!
DJ: Fine!
Han: Good job! Don't get cocky kid!
DJ: Shut up...
Okay, what I meant to do there was give an example we can on agree on. That set, I can now say this. An RPG does NOT let you control your characters directly with good cause.
ABF: Whadda ya mean "good reason"?
DJ: I said CAUSE, not reason! But that is what I meant as well... Anyway, somebody apparently hates turn based combat, but loves Chrono Trigger's excellent gameplay. Okay then... Here's why it was excellent. You didn't run around with full control of hacking and slashing, you waited your turn and told your characters to attack. You had to use strategy, and not a lick of muscle discipline or reflexes was required. That was why it was so cool. You couldn't depend on being able to just dudge dodge dodge and hit the weak point, you had to calculate exactly how strong the enemy's attacks were, what weaknesses it had, and things like that.
I have a hard time really getting my point across, but let me sum it up thusly.
Saying every game should allow full control would completely destroy a huge part of standard RPG battle systems. It's actually HARDER to design an RPG battle system than to just allow someone to run around and hit the attack button, they went OUT OF THEIR WAY to strip you of control and make you give commands to your characters.
And now the final analogy. To remove the whole RPG battle system from RPGs because every game should allow full control of muscle movement so every single game will always be the same sort of hack and slash combat is to say "Chess sucks because it's all turn-based and you don't have full control, let's just make it FULL CONTACT CHESS" *Some idiot proceeds to throw the chess pieces at the other chess pieces.*